Attachment and glorification form two distinct latent factors

Evidence

The distinction between items measuring the two modes of identification was verified with a confirmatory factor analysis using maximum likelihood estimation. The eight attachment and eight glorification items were postulated to load on different latent factors. The analysis was conducted on this sample along with additional samples from Israel and from the United States. In both cultural groups the two-factor model of identification with the nation yielded adequate fit indices: 2(103, N 484) 374.323, comparative fit index (CFI) .93, in the American sample; 2(206, N 208) 726.37, CFI .87, in the Israeli sample (Roccas et al., 2006). — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 58

The positive correlation between glorification and attachment suggests that many people have a congruent pattern of identification with the national group: They are high or low on both attachment and glorification. Indeed, out of the 381 participants in Study 1, 120 were above the median on both modes of identification, and 121 were below the median on both modes of identification. However incongruent patterns of identification are not rare: In our sample 62 participants were above the median on glorification but below the median on attachment, and 61 were below the median on glorification but above the median on attachment. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 145

Categorization

• QUESTION: The two-factor structure replicates across American and Israeli samples — worth chasing whether the factor separation also holds across other national contexts before building on it.
• XREF: Confirms the attachment/glorification two-factor structure grounds the reader’s whole research question; also bears on adjacency of these constructs to ingroup identification more broadly. — connects to: Glorification’s correlation to attachment suppresses attachment’s observable effects. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 96; Attachment items express love and commitment while glorification items assert superiority and leader deference — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 221; Controlling for glorification reveals attachment’s true link to group guilt. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 44 (+5 more)
• SEED: The 62 glorification-high/attachment-low individuals vs. the 61 reverse pattern are a natural starting population for studying tipping points and one-way ratchet questions the reader is pursuing.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 58; Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 145

Related

• Glorification and attachment separately predict reactions to national misdeeds (similarity 0.92)
• Attachment to the in-group and glorification predict opposite reactions to one’s group’s moral violations. (similarity 0.90)
• Glorification’s correlation to attachment suppresses attachment’s observable effects. (similarity 0.90)
• Attachment and glorification positively correlate as shared group identification. (similarity 0.89)
• Controlling for glorification reveals attachment’s true link to group guilt. (similarity 0.89)
• National attachment and glorification are independent modes of identification. (similarity 0.88)
• Attachment to the in-group predicts guilt while glorification predicts defensiveness (similarity 0.88)
• Attachment and glorification are distinct facets of national identification. (similarity 0.88)
• Attachment items express love and commitment while glorification items assert superiority and leader deference (similarity 0.88)
• Attachment can be experimentally induced toward an ideal rather than actual group (similarity 0.87)
• Glorification predicts defensive denial of the in-group’s moral violations. (similarity 0.87)
• Glorification predicts exonerating cognitions that blunt group-based guilt. (similarity 0.87)
• In-group glorification drives justification of wrongdoings while attachment drives guilt (similarity 0.86)
• In-group glorification but not attachment predicts justifying harm against out-groups (similarity 0.86)
• Uncritical in-group glorification, not mere attachment, drives justification of wrongdoing (similarity 0.86)

Broader Connections

• Glorification’s correlation to attachment suppresses attachment’s observable effects. #expands (0.82) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 96
• Glorification and attachment separately predict reactions to national misdeeds #corroborates (0.82) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 90
• Controlling for glorification reveals attachment’s true link to group guilt. #expands (0.80) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 44
• Attachment items express love and commitment while glorification items assert superiority and leader deference #expands (0.78) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 221
• In-group glorification but not attachment predicts justifying harm against out-groups #expands (0.78) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 2115
• In-group glorification drives justification of wrongdoings while attachment drives guilt #expands (0.78) — Emanuele Castano, On the Perils of Glorifying the In-group, 49
• Ingroup attachment strength declines as category size grows, though context can reverse this. #qualifies (0.75) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 425